July 30, 2005
The Integrated World
The one serious disadvantage to living in a world of spin and rhetoric is the lack of anchorage to reality. We talk of people playing politics, but what does that really mean, when politics is the currency of government? I think what people mean is that politics is exercised to the exception of those things politics is meant to help with. By that standard, though, this administration, nor the party that supports it has done all that well.
Winning isn't everything. It isn't even much, if you've put yourself in a position of authority you weren't prepared for the responsibilities of. A person who grasps and fights for the presidency should not be surprised to find out it is hard work. You're only becoming chief executive of one of largest, most populous, and most complicated countries in the world.
And yet Bush thinks it's necessary to say it's hard work. You just figured that out now? I remember being somewhat off-put by how much Bush was on the road during his first term, especially when all he was doing was campaigning for his fellow Republicans. I was thinking, in this time of crisis, should the president's day be filled with photo-ops and stump speeches, or should it be filled with meetings with agency officials, briefings, and other things?
It seems like some define leadership in terms of bold promises, catchy catchphrases, and misty-eyed wistful speeches about the greatness of America. To me, though, this sounds like perpetual campaigning, and ultimately that's what much of Bush's leadership amounts to: he says the things his supporters want to hear, and says them often in different places.
Those who don't support him, though, notice the differences between what he constantly promises, and what actually comes to pass.
I have the expectation that when a leader says something, it should be a currency backed with the gold of truth, of facts, of wisdom and understanding, and not just in the abstract. the people spinning shouldn't be the smartest folks in the room. Bush's brain shouldn't be the guy running his political campaign, the one selling his image, and destroying that of his opponents. We cannot base our national security, our fiscal and economic stability, and our health and well being on the strength of of somebody's creative writing.
As a person who writes, reads, and watches science fiction and fantasy on a regular basis, I can say pretty authoritatively, that people can suspend disbelief on just about anything. All it takes is a willingness to believe and just the right details, in just the right pattern. Storytelling, whether fiction or non-fiction, is about what's inbetween the lines.
But it only works if the audience's logic doesn't work at cross purposes. People can disbelieve anything, too.
It all has to do with different directions of adaptation. We assemble a world in our minds, but also assemble questions about that world, questions brought on by details that don't fit or signs of things we reconstruct from memory. With this system of theory, experience, and memory. We are capable of adapting to the worlds in which we are born, and changing to fit the world over time.
We are also capable of divorcing ourselves from reality, with the right kind of effort. Politicians and people in power are particularly vulnerable to this, in part because the ability to disregard reality feels like a kind of power itself. From the counterculture to the Conservative culture, there are always folks who believe that the old order has fallen away, and that a new world is on the horizon. Get enough people to believe such things, and one can wield great power...
...only to see it fail to get anything done. Reality still exacts it's influence on the results of our efforts, on the rightness of what we do regardless of what we believe works, and is good. The Republicans enjoy asserting that the left is out of touch, and maybe that was true once upon a time. But now the tables have turned, and they've elected somebody who is better at making claims than staking them.
This administration doesn't want to listen to contrary voices. It doesn't want the left's opinion on who they will accept in the courts. It doesn't want any opinions that contradict their claim that the president's policies in Iraq will win the war if they are stuck to long enough. They don't want to hear that they may have gone to far in terms of the tactics they are using to fight the terrorists abroad. It doesn't want to hear that in this time of war, when we have too many crisises to deal with as it is, that they have to give up the tax cuts. Bush's too stuck on keeping a promise his father never should have made to do what is prudent, what is necessary. The pattern here is of a President who doesn't think he's done wrong, and won't hear differently from anybody.
Bush is a president who is guaranteed to fail, because he operates with the certainty of success, rather than the awareness that failure is possible. He will fail because he puts more energy in defending himself from those pointing out his mistakes than he does learning the nature of those mistakes and reconsidering his actions in their light. He will fail because there is no continuity between what he thinks will succeed, and what will succeed.
A leader can't just be inspiring. He must be wise and intelligent, and capable of dealing with the substance of mistakes and grievances, not just the word games and political battles over them. No leaders are perfect, but we can and we must have better leaders than Bush and today's Republicans.
Our leadership must be one that keeps itself aware of its fallibility, and is motivated by it to maintain higher standards of behavior, better standards of governance. We cannot afford a government that is locked inside it's own world, weapons ready to attack anybody trying to drag it out into the light of day.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2005 09:55 AMYour funny.
You make it sound like the President of the United States should run around saying he screwed up all the time. What good will that do? I know it will make you happy but making you happy, and all those on the left who constantly point out the ‘bad’ and NEVER have anything good to say, is NOT his job.
If our President sounded like those who oppose his every move we would be in a deeper pile of … than we already are.
When is the last time a Democratic leader came out and said they were wrong about anything? If they have, I am sure it wasn’t a major issue anyway. It’s not true that they don’t have to because they are not in power.
If the Blues were all knowing then why did they lose their power in the first place?
The Blues lost their Power because McCain had a Black Baby, MacCleland supported Osama Bin Ladin and Kerry was never in Vietnam in the first place.
Posted by: Aldous at July 30, 2005 12:12 PMfunny -
Who’s side are you on, anyway? (hmmm)
So - you’re not contesting that Bush has done wrong, just the fact that he should not have to admit to it? And the justification is that since you’re not aware of a Democrat who has done this means that Republicans should not be required to. (Clinton…? “What I did, I am sorry for. I acted completely inappropriate…”)
—-
I know it will make you happy but making you happy, and all those on the left who constantly point out the ‘bad’ and NEVER have anything good to say, is NOT his job.
—-
Maybe you should try switching to Geico… those damn liberals still don’t say anything good or nice, but I saved a ton on my car insurance.
Sorry for the joke - but I don’t see any topic to respond to in this post - it’s all generalizations and rhetorical? Here’s a proposal - with respect to this thread, you point out an instance where Bush took into account opposing views, and I’ll then find something good to say about it. ???
Posted by: tony at July 30, 2005 12:40 PMStephen Daugherty wrote: The one serious disadvantage to living in a world of spin and rhetoric is the lack of anchorage to reality.
Especially some politicians. Many of them really have lost a grip on reality. Some people design, create, build, and produce. However, consider many politicians (not all). Think how awful you’d feel if one day you woke up and discovered your life was one big lie and you never really produced anything….only thrived off the hard work of others without ever providing any net benefit to society. Many politicians refuse or, are no longer capable of seeing things the way they really are … because if they did, they’d have to admit that they are really just master parasites, that rarely (if ever) provide any net benefit to society, and they’d probably commit suicide (provided they have a conscience; but then, the fact they don’t have a conscience may be what makes them politicians?).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We talk of people playing politics, but what does that really mean, when politics is the currency of government?
The real currency of politics is money, pork-barrel, and graft that greases the system of politics. When money enters politics, it is rotten to the core.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think what people mean is that politics is exercised to the exception of those things politics is meant to help with.
It is now, in this era of government fiscal and moral bankruptcy. Politics is now the mass diversion of the complacent and apathetic voters, from these truly substantive issues: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/PressingProblemsFacingTheUS.htm
Politics are now used to distract us from the fact they government is irresponsible, unaccountable, corrupt, and they’ll do almost anything to perpetuate the distraction, sneak from the cookie jar, plunder tax payers, continue to fill their own pockets, vote themselves some more raises, and seduce the people into the petty partisan bickering, divisiveness, and procedural minutiae. For instance, take your typical bill. They often contain thousands of pages that few scrutinize (much less voters), because they are trying to reduce transparency, and hide what they’re doing, and make it impossible for voters to know why anyone voted for or againse a bill. The system has been perverted to do the very things it was designed to prevent.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: By that standard, though, this administration, nor the party that supports it has done all that well.
The first fundamental thing people need to realize, if they ever want to resolve the problem of irresponsible and unaccountable government, is that neither party is that different. They both just take turns using and abusing the people: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/MainPartySimilarities.htm
The people should perhaps, start treating the entire government (not just take turns with each party) as one entity; and peacefully force government to pass a few simple, no-brainer bills. That’s all. Perhaps, just half of these nine things: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/NinePointPlan.htm
Otherwise, we the voters, the people, should punish them (all of them), by voting them all out of office. Otherwise, they’ll never police their own ranks, they’ll never reform themselves, and we, the people, will simply continue to empower them to continue to use and abuse us.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2005 02:54 PMfunny:
I’ll have you know, Clinton said he had made a mistake & Clinton was the first black democratic president. Oh, wait a minute…that was after he got caught lying to the american people.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at July 30, 2005 02:56 PMThat depends on what the definition of “is” is. Now, that’s funny. Spoken like a true politician.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2005 03:00 PMfunny-
The left, the left, the left- everything you say is focused on whether people are criticizing Bush for things that could harm his political reputation. What I’m trying to tell you is that if he didn’t want the kind of reputation he’s got now, he should have been better prepared to truly lead a people, and not just an ideological movement. He’s good at going out and making all those speeches to the party faithful, getting them all pepped up, telling them that there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be solved by getting rid of the Democratic party.
Truth is, I don’t need 24/7 apologies. Even Clinton made me sick of those. But one Clinton didn’t do is keep on walking into the brick wall after he smacked into it once. He knew, and still knows that people will forgive the errors of those who admit that they are fallible human beings once in a while better than those whose stubborn pride means they can admit a mistake, at least not in a timely and direct way.
I think people know when they’re being told a fairy tale, when they’re being patronized. If you’re not careful, people may get awfully tired of voting for Republicans awfully quick.
d.a.n.-
Look across history, and you will find that the plague that goes by the name “politician” has avoided no civilization, spared no nation or municipality.
Government is intended to shape the rules around it. We want that. A government that can’t adapt is a nation that cannot face the problems it needs to face. We cannot elect, and many times don’t want to elect neophytes every time. Because of the human nature of government, we cannot avoid the necessity of experience with our officials. Throughout the ages, people have used the power of government to shape policy and law to shape for themselves and their friends enrichment and empowerment. It doesn’t matter how pure these governments start out with their intentions. Power curves the space of human behavior around it, and when somebody is given power without the check of accountability on it, few can wield it to the good of all.
What we do as Americans is admit that this is the case, allowing the citizens of our country to exert their own power in return.
We don’t need some messianic plan to toss out every incumbent. We need to raise our standards. We need to start using our votes to directly association poor performance with losing. We need to stop mesmerizing ourselves with empty words and start taking a more pragmatic, less intimidated direction with our government.
Perplexed-
I’ll admit that Clinton lied about intern, even if you won’t admit that Bush has been promising a victory around the corner for the last two years. Even if you won’t admit that Bush is running up hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits that aren’t necessary. Even if you won’t admit he needs to fire Rove, and fulfill his promise to deal with the leakers. I’ll admit that I didn’t like Clinton’s phobia of getting troops killed. I’ll admit that I wanted Saddam dealt with ten years ago, like Richard Clarke did.
I’ll admit that I wish that Clinton pushed back harder on regulation, and that I wish the Democrats had not been so eager to assert themselves as Republicans Lite.
I, and many like me, can admit these mistakes and disappointments, and because of that be much more free to resolve those issues.
How about you?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2005 04:16 PMStephen Daugherty wrote: Look across history, and you will find that the plague that goes by the name “politician” has avoided no civilization, spared no nation or municipality.
True, but there have been periods where government has been more accountable. Also, government should be making progress, not going backwards.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It doesn’t matter how pure these governments start out with their intentions. Power curves the space of human behavior around it, and when somebody is given power without the check of accountability on it, few can wield it to the good of all.
That’s why there must be transparency, which creates accountability, which creates responsibility. All, of which we have too little of (by design) at the moment.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We don’t need some messianic plan to toss out every incumbent.
I disagree. So a few good politicians get tossed out too. Big loss. It’s the price they should pay for not policing their own ranks. I still say we have to hold ‘em all accountable (and soon), and toss ‘em all out. Nothing else has the peaceful force required to balance (not simply shift) the power between government and the people.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: …some messianic plan…
Messianic? So how is the idea of voting a certain way (something we have a right to do, after all) messianic? Don’t political parties of all kinds try to convince people how to vote a certain way? Aren’t we all here trying to convince others of a better way to vote and who to vote for? And the idea of voting out incumbents is not a new idea. Even if you don’t like the idea, characterizing it as messianic doesn’t make sense. That’s just a subtle attempt to be insulting. Or, perhaps you don’t even know what that word means?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We need to raise our standards. We need to start using our votes to directly association poor performance with losing.
I agree 1000%. No argument with that.
That’s what I’m trying to do.
Where we differ is how to do it.
You don’t like the idea of voting ‘em all out,
so you call it a messianic plan.
I don’t like the idea of doing what we been doing (your idea of what we should do; just vote better and vote for better people?).
But, I didn’t call your plan messianic.
I simply said that ain’t workin’.
But, you don’t need to worry.
It’s unlikely that the voters will ever do either.
They’ll continue to unwittingly empower one party or the other to take turns abusing using and abusing the people, continue to. Many Americans have fought and died for the right to vote, but Americans fail to see that it is sometimes necessary to occassionally vote out all the irresponsible and corrupt, all of them, especially when it gets too hard to tell who is honest and who is too corrupt.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We need to stop mesmerizing ourselves with empty words and start taking a more pragmatic, less intimidated direction with our government.
Mesmerizing ourselves with empty words?
You think voters that try to address these many pressing problems ( home.comcast.net\~d.a.n\PressingProblemsFacingTheUS.htm ) are just doing it to mesmerize themselves? So, I (and many others too) suggest voting ‘em all out (and they deserve it), because nothing else seems to be working, and that’s mesmerizing ourselves? So, is voting, and participating in political discussion (such as this), and contributing money, and time to a political idea, and spending thousands of hours of research and writing up problems and solutions, is just all to mesmerize ourselves? That’s just another thinly veiled attempt to be subtly insulting.
Less intimidated direction ?
Why? Besides, the government isn’t very intimidated by the people. Those in government know they can say one thing and do another (“Read my lips”) and get away with it most of the time. Even if it were possible, why shouldn’t government be somewhat intimidated by the people if the government is irresponsible? Especially when that government is no longer a government of/by/for the people?
But, like I said, Stephen….you’ve got nothing to worry about at all. No matter how convinced I am that we should simply exercise the right to vote ‘em all out is a good idea, and may be a good way to peacefully balance power (not simply shift it), you need not worry, because the majority of people will probably never see it that way, no matter how irresponsible government becomes. Too many people have already given up. Too many are now too complacent, apathetic, oblivious, frustrated, or don’t give a damn. They’re largely dissaffected. They don’t see how anything they’ve been doing is really making that much difference. They came out in droves (122 million in the 2004 presidential election), but most are still disgusted with the irresponsibility of the federal government.
Government irresponsibly continues to:
[] spend like there’s no tomorrow,
[] ignore looming problems in Social Security, Medicare, GPBGC & plundered pensions, aging population,
[] allow corporate and investor fraud (e.g. S&L bail out),
[] vote themselves raises (in fact, their automatic now),
[] vote themselves cu$hy perks and benefits at the tax payers expense,
[] ignore our energy vulnerabilility,
[] pretend national defense is important while ignoring the wide-open borders and calling those (Minute Men) that try to help secure the borders “Vigilantes”,
[] import low cost labor (e.g. via HB1 visas) while pretending to care about the American workers,
[] ignore the health care crisis, increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care
[] allow presidents to pardon criminals,
[] alienate our allies,
[] raise taxes,
[] ignore the declining quality of public education,
[] abuse eminent domain laws,
[] discriminate against people based on sexual preference, religion, race, gender, age, wealth, etc.;
[] condone torture,
[] allow judges and parole boards to continually release repeat offenders (e.g. child molestors, violent rapists, murderers) to repeatedly commit the crimes again and again and again,
[] alienate our allies
[] and continue to tax, spend, vote for pork-barrel, raid the cookie jar, steal from tax payers, write hot checks,
[] and basically, continue to be fiscally and morally bankrupt.
d.a.n.-
Your plan involves unseating 550 elected officials in Washington, and thousands in the states. It involves convincing the constituency of hundreds of districts to vote out people many would consider worthy of their positions.
It involves opposing the entrenched interests of both parties, and defeating them.
To give you an idea of why I believe your approach cannot work, just consider this: the Republican revolution, a difficult campaign if there ever was one, made about a quarter of the House’s seats, and about twelve of the Senate’s change hands. This was a major change.
550. That will take immense organization going not just through one election cycle, but three, in order to get all the senators.
And you believe you’re the one to make this happen? Okay, you get your wish. Well, I bet you dollars to donuts that the same problems will come back, only worse. By the time you are done with the epic task of completely washing away all the incumbents, your support system will become exhausted. If the results are not one hundred percent, they could become discouraged. Even if you get everything, you just end up with the same strange attractors of human behavior emerging once more.
I want something real people can do in the real world, something which just by it’s marginal effect can improve things measurably. I want something people can hold onto even when things are looking down. Not merely the dislike of corruption, but the notion that there are things that can and should be done.
In the end, I don’t expect to save the nation’s soul. I only expect to do a little good, and with God’s grace, that will do a lot of good.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2005 08:21 PMStephen Daugherty,
What we’ve been doing ain’t workin’ and we may be runnin’ out of time.
Voting out some incumbents, or many incumbents won’t have disasterous effects. It will simply (peacefully) send the message to government that some reform, and transparency is required. We’re not looking for monumental change. Just a few no brainers. But, you continue to portray it as something unsurmountable and unattainable. But, like I keep saying…don’t worry so much, because the people will probably never see the logic of using their vote to peacefully force government to be accountable and responsible, by simply using their vote to vote out all incumbents, repeatedly, until they implement at least half of these: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/NinePointPlan.htm
dan,
I think you should run for office, that way you can repeat your nine point plan aud nausem, and replace an incumbent at the same time. Talk about two for one!
It was interesting the first 40 times, now it’s just tedious.
d.a.n.-
It’s the little things that count. Take this:
This was the question that UN ambassador nominee John Bolton answered no to:
Interviews — Have you been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony? If so, provide details.
He was interviewed by an Inspector General working with the Attorney General looking into the Plame matter. This is the person that Bush is recess appointing, according to CBS reports.
Can Bush be that stupid? The answer is, yes. Only it doesn’t get called being stupid. It’s called sticking it to the Democrats, and unfortunately a great number of Republican play ball, without thinking of where this kind of political idiocy leads.
Hold them responsible. Simple as that. Make it plain to these people what their party is doing: separating itself from their interests. The sad part is we no longer have to try that hard to point this out.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2005 12:00 AMRocky, not everyone here is a regular. And, the ideologies have been evolving, are numerous, valid and important subjects, and pertinent to the topic of discussion, despite what seems consistent and repetitive to regulars, despite whether anyone else agrees or disagrees. Many regulars don’t care to see it, or how it gradually grows and evolves, and that’s perfectly fine….please skip it if you don’t like it, or think you’ve already heard it all.
Personally, especially if I agree with another’s message and value system presented here (and there are plenty of others doing the same here too), I don’t mind seeing their consistent application and communication of those beliefes.
But, please, if you’d like, simply skip right over any post that starts with my name: d.a.n and allow the non-regulars to read it if they’d like to. And please don’t waste any time reading my posts. That’s what many do. What could be more simple? Or, would you prefer to have me banned ?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2005 08:39 AMRocky, please skip this part….
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n.- It’s the little things that count. Take this: This was the question that UN ambassador nominee John Bolton answered no to: …
I agree. Especially, the many numerous little things that start to form a disturbing trend.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Hold them responsible. Simple as that. Make it plain to these people what their party is doing: separating itself from their interests.I agree, and there’s nothing I’d like more than to simply make it plain to them (both parties), with increased transparency, better law enforcement, and firing the whole bunch if they don’t.
The sad part is we no longer have to try that hard to point this out.
That’s because the corruption has become too acceptable, business-as-usual. That may be why what we’ve been doin’ ain’t workin’ ?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2005 08:47 AMThose posters on the left spend enormous amounts of time discussing the reasons that the present administration is not doing a good job. A lot of research goes into the posts and, of course reference material is provided. That material is very close to 100% from “left leaning” publications, articles, etc. This is fine because the purpose of this forum is to discusss, share and argue viewpoints.
President Bush, the administration, Conservatives, Right Wingers, The Christian Right and, Republicans in politics are generally described as liars, seekers of wealth and power, short sighted, incapable of establishing priorities, a bunch of “good old boys” looking after each other, unable to make a sound decision, solely responsible for war and death, violaters of the Constitution and, a host of other horrendous inadequacies.
All of this is to be expected as the party in power will always be criticized.
We on the other side of the aisle, call us what you will, argue as enthusiastically that we are being unjustly attacked, we have as many positions in opposition to the accusations as are presented.
People of reason at some point would have to stop and reflect on some of the “problems” we identify and realize that a solution somewhere between the extremes does exist. As a result some bi-partisan discussion would be refreshing.
In any case the current President cannot be re-elected. Regardless of who wins the White House next election, everyone currently supporting President Bush will also be gone. Very likely there will be a huge swing in the majority in both houses. Actually that swing may even be closer to to a mid-term vote on House seats.
I pose the following question to those of you on the left who seem to have all the answers. At least that is what comes across in your posts.
Who do you think has a legitimate chance to become President (Democrat) and, what other key members of the Cabinet could be appointed from the current ranks. I don’t think it unfair to ask this question because you claim (through the tone of your posts) that you can do it better.
Final thought : I would estimate conservatively that whatever the title or theme of the article that is presented as the foundation for discussion in at least 75% of the cases results only in bashing the administration or a component issue of it. Why not just leave off the titles.
Posted by: steve smith at July 31, 2005 11:13 AMd.a.n.-
You have to start small, and confront people with specific unmistakeable information. People can let many of these things go because the media dwells more on the emotion of their reporters reacting to dramatic events rather than delve into the details and work out what they mean. The blogs help with this because what we have are motivated investigators in all layers of society and sectors who track down leads and hunt down clues.
I’ve got my notions of what needs to happen, and what people should think and do, but I recognize this: my judgment’s not perfect, and neither are my plans. Additionally, my zeal, no matter how charismatically I convey it can only push people so far. I believe if am specific about the facts, and clear about their implications and the picture they paint, then my passion merely follows theirs as they read, and their own outrage can take them further towards the action made necessary by the facts.
Because it’s based on fact, rather than on agenda, there’s less of a tendency for things to spin free. It’s easier to correct and reassert facts and convince people of things that it is to try and correct an overall opinion. Also, facts can change the overall opinion much easier than the opinions can change the facts. This is where logic and rationalism can be of great importance, and can in seeming paradox make the passions of the voters burn hotter.
That Bush, a president in a time of war who once polled above 70% could only win by by one state and two percentage points in the popular vote is a testament to how much of a drag inconvenient facts can be on even the hardest fought campaign. Bush won because of three things: fear, an amoral willingness to libel opponents and parts of the populations, and sheer effort.
But now, many Republican voters have buyer’s remorse. They don’t see things getting better, and they see that many of the things Bush promised were not what he made them out to be. They see the country they honestly love with all their heart dragged through the mud, and there’s enough evidence that the media excuses are beginning to ring hollow.
In the end, we may live with different interpretations of the world we live in, but we still live in the same world, and only one stream of events actually occured, though we witness them through a multitude of subjective points of view. This administration deserves the outrage of the American people for what it’s done.
It’s cheated them out of justice for the victims of 9/11 in exchange for a problematic war that they didn’t even have the decency to start on honest grounds. I don’t care how good your intentions are. You don’t put my country’s credibility on the line with a war we start on thin and questionable evidence. You don’t tell me after a year of pounding the drumbeat of WMDs and terrorist conspiracies that these were merely secondary concerns, especially when they form the legal justification of the war.
Now, knowing what I know, I can merely assualt and berate those on the right, or I can tell them what leads me to my conclusions. Even if they dispute what I say, I can force them to face and think about facts that they would otherwise not be inconvenienced by. Forced to think about the facts, a good number will consider their implications, and keep a closer eye on events. Then as tends to happen with this president, there will be events to confirm the negative view, and by that Bush’s support will rightly erode.
Politicians will push things as far as the people’s patience goes. If we can properly encourage people to be impatient with bad government, we can force a degree of accountability above and beyond what we have now.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2005 11:30 AMThose posters on the left spend enormous amounts of time discussing the reasons that the present administration is not doing a good job. A lot of research goes into the posts and, of course reference material is provided. That material is very close to 100% from “left leaning” publications, articles, etc. This is fine because the purpose of this forum is to discusss, share and argue viewpoints.
The operative question is what you consider left-leaning, what that means for the information involved. Generally, my experience with the Right is that they consider anybody that doesn’t take the administration line as gospel as left-leaning. But if the administration line is not supportable on the facts, then you’ve excluded any moderation the facts could give you. Question is, are your facts any different than mine, and apart from political consideration, what to do those facts mean?
Furthermore, why do expect your political rivals not to be critical? It’s the job of those not in power in this country to be the watchdog of those in power. It can be taken to extremes, but there is good in there being somebody not compromised by party loyalties being able to point out the flaws and foibles of the other side. It should be based on the facts, though, not just political ideology.
Also, the Right tends to present themselves as the morally superior crowd, so when they inevitably show human fallibility, their pride sets them up for a fall.
I don’t think we have all the answers. What we do have, for the first time in a long time, is a sense of ourselves as Democrats, one that fosters a more confident airing of our views. We’re sick and tired of all the abuses we see, and we don’t feel like deferring to the majority in congress anymore. Maybe it’s just that you haven’t encountered confident Democrats in sometime, and are made uncomfortable by those other than Republicans saying in hard words what they believe.
We are going to disagree with and criticize Bush and the Republican’s immoderate, unpopular agenda. We are going to react badly to the Republican insistence on vilifying us for the mistakes of their leaders. We are not going to give you guys an easy time of things when you’re making it difficult for us to even discuss the issues calmly with you. Cooperation requires mutual disarmament. Are your people willing to stop bashing Democrats and Liberals for their mere existence?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2005 11:48 AMd.a.n.- Your plan involves unseating 550 elected officials in Washington, and thousands in the states. It involves convincing the constituency of hundreds of districts to vote out people many would consider worthy of their positions.
No. Not all 550. That’s unrealistic. But, 20% would be sufficient to change the political landscape significantly, and simply show the elitist, unaccountable government that the people want more transparency, accountability, and responsibility. 30% or more would be even better.
And, if the people do ever decide to vote out many of ‘em, they’re only doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
It involves opposing the entrenched interests of both parties, and defeating them.Not necessarily. Not if the people start to catch on and see that party doesn’t really matter that much.
To give you an idea of why I believe your approach cannot work, just consider this: the Republican revolution, a difficult campaign if there ever was one, made about a quarter of the House’s seats, and about twelve of the Senate’s change hands. This was a major change.
Yes, and also in 1996, a lot of incumbents got unseated merely because voters wanted change. The people may eventually realize that the two parties are playin’ the people, neither party acts responsibly, and the corruption increases, and the influence of big money increasingly has more influence than the people.
550. That will take immense organization going not just through one election cycle, but three, in order to get all the senators.
No, not all 550 (even though that would be nice; that would certainly make it plain to them, as you say).
But, you’re probably right. It will probably never happen, even though that’s what should happen (i.e. all get fired, even if a few good politicians get fired too).
The problem with only trying to vote for better people, or vote better, or vote for one party or the other, or keep doin’ what we’re doin’ is that it ignores:
[] the inherent corruption, lack of transparency (by design), accountability, and responsibility,
[] the refusal of politicians to reform campaign finace and reject the influence of those that abuse wealth and power to control others,
[] the lack of sufficient morals to reject the unfair influence of big money that makes the system rotten,
[] the fact that we’re empowering each party to simply take turns using and abusing the people and plundering the tax payers,
[] the fact that the current approach lacks the peaceful force to make government be transparent and police their own ranks,
[] the fact that the tax system is complicated (by design) to help the relative few that abuse wealth and power, the two million in the Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees.
[] the fact that both parties, and the entire federal government, in general, is too fiscally irresponsible, and both parties continue to run up huge deficits every year of the last 45 years.
[] that, basically, what we’ve been doin’ ain’t workin’ and that government is not getting better, it’s getting worse.
d.a.n.- You have to start small, and confront people with specific unmistakeable information. People can let many of these things go because the media dwells more on the emotion of their reporters reacting to dramatic events rather than delve into the details and work out what they mean.
Hmmmm….starting small has some merit; otherwise people are too overwhelmed, regardless of the potential benefits and reality.
Yes, facts are required. Unfortunately, the media too often wastes it’s ability to reveal the truth (even when it is known).
I love the occassional careful investigative reporting that tries to reveal the truth, but the media has the same problem the government has: it is controlled by big money. The examples are as numerous.
Take DELL Computer for instance. They made crappy notebook computers (11.6 times more complaints than HP/Compaq that had almost equal market share and sales), but PC Magazine, PC Computer, advertisers on television, and other magazines, refuse to show the truth, for fear of losing advertising dollars, and continue to fill their magazines and ads with reviews that ignore the horrible failure rates, and the truth.
The blogs help with this because what we have are motivated investigators in all layers of society and sectors who track down leads and hunt down clues.
That’s very true. It’s taught me much, exposed a lot of great ideas to continually incorporate, and there’s infinitely more to learn.
Dan,
No I don’t wish you banned. I do wish that you wouldn’t repeat yourself so often.
“No. Not all 550. That’s unrealistic. But, 20% would be sufficient to change the political landscape significantly, and simply show the elitist, unaccountable government that the people want more transparency, accountability, and responsibility. 30% or more would be even better.”
10% would be huge, 20% stretches credibility, 30% is fantasyland. Money and politics are wedded at the hip, and have been since both were discovered. Change takes time.
It has taken 230 years for this country to get this screwed up, it is going to take a few more to make things right.
Stephen Daugherty,
You misread my post. I am happy over the fact that you guys are criticizing. My initial text in my post was just statements building up to the real question which Democrats or non-Republican party members absolutely never answer or provide insight into.
As a Conservative Republican I don’t like hearing about how bad the administration is and is doing. I respond the best I can. Still I know that we certainly could have done a better job.
Yopu guys continually identify those problems and always claim that it could be done better. I simply asked in my post,
“Who do you think has a legitimate chance to become President (Democrat) and, what other key members of the Cabinet could be appointed from the current ranks. I don’t think it unfair to ask this question because you claim (through the tone of your posts) that you can do it better.”
Instead you answer as you did in your post of 11:48 am. No answers, just more crap about how we on the right are morally superior, you have the right to criticize, etc. I AGREE, NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Rocky, Yes. Here, a lot, practice repetition, they do.
It might seem odd to read and perceive repetition when discussing questions of contemporary theory. However, as soon as you start to realize that the subject is not something inert, but something once and for all, that, on the contrary, implies some type of temporal process that lies within the category of repetition, it is not in principle as alien or as strange as it might seem, were you to regard it as something absolutely self-contained, instantaneous, or purely spatial. If you are at all interested in questions of contemporary theory or of theory in general, there is no concept or category that leads more directly into what is specific about contemporary theory - or certain aspects of it - than repetition.
So, when we occupy for some time, at least on occasion, with the question of repetition, whether or not it is possible, what importance it has, whether something gains or loses in being repeated, we suddenly realize, you can after all take a trip to somewhere you’ve been many times before, and now you can prove to yourself whether a repetition is possible and what importance it has.
But, then perhaps, now, I am merely, repeatedly mesmerizing myself with empty words, of which I plan to do much more of, until I am banned.
: )
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2005 05:54 PMDoes that make any sense? Or, would you like me to repeat it?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2005 05:59 PMAfter all, what, is repetition? Repetition, turns out to involve the desire to indulge the possibilities of expansion, but only in order ultimately to be able to pull it all back together again by means of our theory. In short, we expect repetition to be true to its name: to allow for the possibility of taking everything back again. And when we discover that in this sense there is no repetition, we conclude that repetition is impossible. It is as if my words, which I now would not repeat at any price, were only a dream from which I awoke to have life unremittingly and treacherously retake everything, without providing a repetition.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2005 06:10 PMd.a.n.-
Repetition must be artfully executed to avoid getting on the reader’s nerves. I would call it strange looping, using the phrase or word as a constant, while changing the structure and meaning around it.
Your trouble is that you insist people read with and agree with your plan, but forget that the decision is up to people whether they follow through. Trying to push that decision only places doubts in people’s minds as to whether the pusher has their best interests in heart and sees them as a person with real concerns, and not a person who simply doesn’t have brains to realize what your great idea is.
As for me, I admit that that I’ve got a point I push again and again, but I try to explore different aspects of that, and use different real-world scenarios to illustrate why the core values that I reiterate so often need to be heeded.
Steve Smith-
I’m not going to make predictions, not knowing my choices. As you know, I thought Kerry was the best candidate for 2004. I didn’t start seeing Kerry as presidential material until he did well in the primaries and I heard him on the campaign trail.
To be honest, though, unless I see better out of her, I would not see Hillary as the primary candidate, unless she does something major of substance in the Senate. It’s not that she’s a woman or a liberal, but if she does end up the main candidate for the Democrats, she’s going to have to be able to present more at the ballot box that just that she’s a Clinton, because she is going to be the easy target for Republican hatred, and I don’t want such an obvious target painted on the Democratic Party candidate.
Other than that, I really have no leanings or candidates in mind. And I’m glad about that. Let’s have time between here and now to actually develop real choices.
This stream of successions between candidacy in one area and candidacy in another does neither party any good. Find your capable men, whatever level they are at, and put them out there. We need folks who have the faculties to handle the job, not people who have been groomed for the position by party leaders. See who folks like, can get behind. See who actually displays leadership, instead of merely speaking of it.
Point of the whole article, really. Politics can sometimes field such an intense pull on other interests that they get wrapped around it. This is what brings the question of Rove, the War, and other Bush deeds into it. Everything has been made a question of who is trying to get at Bush, rather than a practical question of what has been done right and wrong. That’s what bugs me. This system is supposed to work against people who make mistakes and leave things screwed up. It’s supposed to make it difficult to keep the job if you’ve alienated a broad section of the population.
All in all I’m just sick of the first response I get when dealing with Republicans being that I’m just trying to sabotage their great leader.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2005 07:12 PMd.a.n.- Repetition must be artfully executed to avoid getting on the reader’s nerves.Oh, like the little essay above about repetition? Does it look familiar?
I would call it strange looping, using the phrase or word as a constant, while changing the structure and meaning around it.Well, maybe, to a point. But, you have to be careful it doesn’t start becoming as meaningless as the little essay above on repetition. And, you have to remember that not all readers and listeners are regulars. Sure, vary the way the message is delivered, but don’t obscure it beyond recognition.
Repacking can help. I’m constantly working on new packages. However, the perceived repetition is primarily only by those that disagree with the message.
Your trouble is that you insist people read with and agree with your plan, but forget that the decision is up to people whether they follow through.
No. Your trouble is that you draw conclusions that are not supported by facts, such as claiming I insist people think any particular way. Only facts and reasons have a chance of doing that. But, there’s no element of force here. There’s no violation of anyone’s rights. I, like most others here, merely try to give reasons for supporting certain ideas and solutions. That’s all. What’s wrong with that? What fun would this blog be if we banned everyone we disagree with? You can try to characterize others as messianic, and forcing their ideas onto others, but we’re merely all presenting ideas that people can agree or disagree with, in varying degress, in varying methods. The choice to believe any idea is the choice of the reader.
Trying to push that decision only places doubts in people’s minds as to whether the pusher has their best interests in heart and sees them as a person with real concerns, and not a person who simply doesn’t have brains to realize what your great idea is.
Well, there you go again…trying to characterize me as pushing a decision (that would require force, would it not?). Like I said, it’s merely a presentation of reasons and opinions. Nothing more. I don’t force anyone here to do anything. You probably only say that simply because you don’t agree with it. And, it may be a great idea. It’s theoretically possible, even if it is unlikely. We can only hope people will be less complacent; otherwise, the alternatives don’t look promising. Also, many here draw harsher conclusions all the time about certain groups, but choose to wallow in the petty partisan bickering and divisiveness, which largely serves as a clever distraction from our more pressing problems. You do that; you’re clearly partisan (based on countless posts), and that’s your right, but I personally don’t believe either main party has much to offer (and that’s my right too), because both parties have perverted the system so that neither are accountable, and they can now both take turns using and abusing the people.
So, presenting reasons and debating ideas is what it is all about. Those that agree with the message want it spread more, and those that don’t agree, don’t want it spread or repeated any more. It’s really pretty simple. However, the perception of repetition is unavoidable. Everyone here does it. The infrequent visitors to the blog don’t see it, but it’s all too obvious to the regulars. Those that protest choose to use the repetitive argument to stop what they disagree with, but don’t argue repetition when it’s what they want to hear.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2005 08:01 PMSteve Smith:
I’d like to see Joe Biden as president.
Dan,
I have to give it to you, you are one, persistant, son of a gun.
Change for the best shouldn’t have to be packaged. It should stand on it’s own two feet. It should be logical, forthright, and it should be like a slap in the forehead (why the hell didn’t I think of that).
Change for the best shouldn’t be like a mantra that needs to be repeated over and over.
The problem with what you choose to repeat is there is nothing fresh, it is always the same, and don’t take this personally, it is often dull as dirt.
If you want to lead people into the promised land, you must tell them a truth that they have never heard before.
Posted by: Rocky at July 31, 2005 09:45 PMRocky, most truths are nothing new. Sorry.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2005 10:13 PMDan,
Please understand that I mean no personal disrespect. There can be aspects of the truth that no one has pointed out before.
Just because I don’t find your opinions enlightening doesn’t mean that others don’t.
Don’t give up.
Posted by: Rocky at July 31, 2005 11:07 PMd.a.n.-
No, your comment there seemed designed to repeat the word repetition in bold. I would do it more like this:
Repetition is necessary sometimes,but
Repetition is a risk sometimes, because
Repetition means space is being wasted for
Repetition which adds no new meaning for
The message you’re trying to get across.
Each statement repeats the word, but the context changes. But you don’t change the context. You simply repeat what you posted before, as if you can change their minds by brute force, get them to admit they’re wrong just by persistence, and the charm of your ideas. That’s where I get the notion of pushing.
People can read, and most folks can probably understand your concepts. Your problem isn’t likely the reader’s comprehension, but their dissatisfaction with your idea.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2005 11:13 PMPeople can read, and most folks can probably understand your concepts. Your problem isn’t likely the reader’s comprehension, but their dissatisfaction with your idea.
Not all are dissatisfied. Just those that already don’t like it or, like Rocky said, don’t find it enlightening. That’s OK. I can live with that.
But, the part where Rocky says “don’t give up” is admirable.
Really, your point about repetition is noted. I’m not sure it’s avoidable, since I rarely participate on the many other discussion topics…only the ones related to government problems and potential solutions. Also, there are hundreds of elements and details to the many solutions that are evolving daily. Visit the site occassionally, and you’ll see how it incorporates good ideas from many here…even some of your ideas, Stephen.
We should encourage all to do the same, no matter how much we dislike their beliefs, or style, or repetition. I suspect there are many thinner skinned people that visited a blog, contributed a few times, got trampled for their belief or style or repetition, and never returned to ever contribute again.
The truth is, as Rocky eludes to, there are many, despite what you think, that want to hear it, agree with it, want to spread it, and aren’t dissatisfied with it. That’s a big part of what the blog is all about. It’s a great place to find new ideas, arguments for/against, and see how well they float.
And, it’s not my idea. It’s not a new idea. It’s an idea I, and many others just happen to agree with, because someone else gave valid reasons why it had merit.
Especially, as the people grow increasingly frustrated and aware that their choices are being cleverly limited to only a few, and it doesn’t matter how or whether they vote.
But, unless I now say what the idea is (here), a newcomer will not even know what we’re talking about (i.e. vote only for non-incumbents).
Still, the characterization of brute force is a clever attempt to discourage, but it is an exaggeration, because there’s no element of force here. People aren’t forced to read, much less agree.
There’s a whole lot of stuff on the blogs I don’t agree with, but don’t tell them to get lost, stop repeating themselves, encourage the Weblog Managers to have them banned, or delete their posts (as many others have done and do).
Just do what some others do. Skip it if you don’t like it, or who wrote it. What could be more simple? Just look for the warning tag:
______Posted by d.a.n______
Stephen Daugherty,
Thank you for your response/discussion about potential candidates, etc. You have answered my question.
The reason for my persistence was simply that I have always believed it acceptable (even encouraged) to offer criticisms regarding a person or group and/or how what they are doing can be improved upon.
In the world of politics and government there are always names attached to the problem/issue.
Those who don’t like or don’t agree with the present administration have been quite outspoken as to what is wrong and why. I think this is a very good thing and I respect the courage and forthrightness with which they do so.
I feel rather strongly that criticisms and suggestions should be accompanied by alternatives. Who could be more successful and why.
That said I understand why you would not want to identify people by name this early in the process. I am just curious as to the type of person(s) you guys would prefer and a name gives me a point of reference.
Posted by: steve smith at August 1, 2005 10:40 AMOk, Rocky, Stephen & d.a.n. Break it up. Stephen, d.a.n already gave you the solution to his repetition:
“…please don’t waste any time reading my posts. That’s what many do.”
steve, I liked Wes Clark in the last election, and if McCain runs again, I’ll give him serious consideration.
The main point for me is to vote for someone who will bring honor, transparency, and responsibility (and good, thoughtful policy, rather than dogmatic adherence to ideology) back to the White House.
AP,
Thank you for your thoughts on possible types of candidates.
Posted by: steve smith at August 1, 2005 11:32 AMStephen, excellent article, terrific follow-ups! I too feel that Hillary doesn’t have enough going for her at present — and that she is going to be all too easily swiftboated if she does become the major candidate in ‘08.
Interesting comments all around.
Dan, I must tell you that I always look at your formatting — if it looks like another version of your standard plan, I simply don’t read it. If it looks like you’re actually responding and engaging with the article at hand, I’ll always read what you have to say.
AP, I was a Clark supporter in the last primary too, and I’d really like to see him run for office again. He is one fantastically brilliant man, and I think he would be a terrific leader. And not just because of all his military experience, but because he obviously understands the importance that diplomacy brings to international issues.
After all the damage that W has done, America needs to elect a man who is smart, liberal without being weak, and completely honest and trustworthy — and I think it very obvious that Clark is all of those things, in spades.
she is going to be all too easily swiftboated
LOL! That’s a verb now. Cool. :)
I hope Clark runs again. He’s got my vote (and my campaign donation) if he wants it. His op-ed after London’s 7/7 bombings foreshadowed the administration’s flip-flop on counter-terrorism strategy, and his testimony on Iraq earlier this year was brilliant,
As chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as “hopelessly confused” and spouting “fuzzy stuff” and “dumb cliches.”Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn’t bother to suppress an “I told you so.”
I told you so. As far as I’m concerned, that should be Democrat’s mantra. Good thing I’m not a political consultant. :)
